Lie Evidence of the Story of David's Adultery with Uriah's Wife - 20 Evidences That Lie the Story

 May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you. Christians on the Internet say that the story of David’s adultery with Uriah’s wife , Hittite, whose name is “Bathsheba,” is found in the Qur’an . So why do you Muslims protest and criticize? I mean, when we criticize the story, it’s as if we are criticizing the Qur’an, which confirmed the story, isn’t that right? Okay, this is a research with 20 pieces of evidence that invalidate the attribution of this story to the Qur’an, and it has nothing to do with the interpretation of the verse in which Allah the Almighty said: “And has there come to you the news of the litigants when they climbed over the wall of the private chamber? (21) When they entered upon David, and he was terrified of them. They said, “Do not fear. We are two litigants. One of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth and do not be unjust, and guide us to the straight path.” (22) Indeed, this is my brother. He has ninety-nine ewes, and I have one ewe.” One. So he said, “Entrust her to me,” and he oppressed me in the matter of speech. (23) He said, “He has certainly wronged you by asking for your ewe in addition to his ewes. And indeed, many associates oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds - and few are they.” And David assumed that We had only tried him, so he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing and repented. (S) (24) So We forgave him that, and indeed, he will have a place in Paradise. With Us is nearness and a good place of return. This verse does not say that the ewe that David took was Uriah’s wife . This is an interpretation taken by some who rejoice in the Israelite stories of the people only. All that is in the story is that God tested David , so He sent him two angels to test him in a matter. One of the angels said to him, “My brother has 99 sheep and I have one ewe.” He said to me, “Give it to me and I will guarantee it for you.” He beat me in arguments, meaning he came up with convincing arguments. So Solomon immediately issued a ruling and said, “He wronged you in his request for your ewe to add it to his ewes.” He did not listen to the other man’s argument. If he had listened to him, perhaps if he heard the other man’s words, he might change his mind. They had previously asked him to judge between them fairly and not to be excessive, meaning, “Do not be unfair in your judgment.” But this is not justice, as the other has the right to defend himself. When the two angels left, David thought. The word “thought” here means “be certain.” David thought that God had tested him, so he asked God for forgiveness and repented. What is the need to decorate the interpretation with fabricated texts and stories that have no connection to revelation? Is everything that is said to be written down, memorized and used as evidence? Given what I found in the mouths and mouthpieces of those who cling to the trash can of history and stories, I must refute those texts while presenting the statements of the scholars of interpretation regarding this story . To begin with, this story is not valid in terms of its chain of transmission or its text, for the following evidence:

1- Al-Baydawi, may God have mercy on him, said 5/27:
“And what was narrated that his sight fell on a woman and he fell in love with her and he strove until he married her and she bore him Solomon, if it is true, then perhaps he proposed to his fiancée or he asked her to give him up from his wife, and that was customary among them and the Ansar consoled the Muhajireen with this meaning. And what was said that he sent Uriah to jihad repeatedly and ordered him to advance until he was killed and he married her is mockery and slander, and for that reason Ali, may God be pleased with him, said: Whoever narrates the hadith of David, peace be upon him, according to what the storytellers narrate, I will lash him one hundred and sixty times.”

2- Al-Tha'labi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his interpretation (Tafsir) 8/185:
"Al-Suddi, Al-Kalbi and Muqatil narrated: On the authority of their sheikhs, some of their hadiths were mixed with others. They said: David had divided time into three days: one day in which he would judge between people... and he cited the narrations."
So Al-Tha'labi's statement here: "The hadiths of some of them were mixed with others" means that their narrations were confused. This is what the scholar Ibn Ashour confirmed in his investigation of Al-Tha'labi's interpretation, saying in the margin:
"This is the mythical story that Allah exalts His saints from, let alone His prophets."
So far, this response from the people of interpretation and what they said is sufficient, but I will not be satisfied with this alone because of the rancor that resides in my heart because of what the people have fabricated. Come, let us see who the narrators of the hadith are.
** Al-Suddi:
His name is Ismail bin Abdul Rahman Al-Suddi.
Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said: I asked Yahya bin Ma'in about Al-Suddi and Ibrahim bin
Muhajir, and he said: They are close in weakness.

Amr bin Ali said: I heard a man from Baghdad, one of the people of Hadith, mention Al-Suddi - meaning
Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi - and he said: He is weak.
Abbas al-Duri said: I asked Yahya bin Ma'in about Al-Suddi, and he said: There is weakness in his Hadith.
Abu Ahmad bin Adi said: I heard Ibn Hammad say: Al-Sa'di said: He is a liar and a slanderer - meaning Al-Suddi.
And on the authority of Abdullah bin Habib bin Abi Thabit, he said: I heard Al-Sha'bi and it was said to him: Ismail Al-Suddi has been given a portion of knowledge of the Qur'an , he said: Ismail has been given a portion of ignorance of the Qur'an.

Abu Hatim said: His hadith is written down but not used as evidence.

Al-Jawzajani said: I was told by Mu'tamir, on the authority of Laith - meaning Ibn Abi Salim - who said: There were two liars in Kufa, one of them died: Al-Suddi and Al-Kalbi.
Al-Uqaili said: He is weak, and he used to criticize the two sheikhs.
Al-Tabari said: His hadith is not reliable.

** Muqatil:
His name is Muqatil ibn Sulayman ibn Bashir Al-Azdi Al-Khurasani.
Al-Nasa'i said about him: He is a liar.
Abu Hatim said about him: His hadith is abandoned.
Al-Bukhari said about him: He is a denier of hadith.
Al-Daraqutni said about him: His hadith is weak, and he counted him among the weak.

** Al-Kalbi:
His name is Muhammad ibn Al-Sa'ib ibn Bishr ibn Amr ibn Al-Harith Al-Kalbi.
Yahya ibn Ma'in said about him: He is weak.

Al-Asma'i said about him, on the authority of Abu Awana: I heard Al-Kalbi saying something that whoever says it is an infidel.
And on the authority of Yahya bin Ya'la Al-Maharbi: It was said to Zaidah: Three do not narrate from them: Ibn Abi Laila, Jabir Al-Ja'fi, and Al-Kalbi.
Zaid bin Al-Habbab said: I heard Sufyan Al-Thawri say: It is strange that someone narrates from Al-Kalbi.

Al-Nasa'i said: He is not trustworthy and his hadith should not be written down.
Abu Hatim said: People agree to abandon his hadith, do not engage in it, his hadith is useless.
Al-Jawzahani said: He is a liar, and he is weak
. Ibn Hibban said: The obviousness of his lying is more evident than it requires going into great detail in describing him.
Al-Saji said: His hadith is abandoned, and he was very weak due to his extreme Shi'ism. Trustworthy people of transmission have agreed to criticize him and abandon narrating from him in rulings and branches.

Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah said: He narrated fabricated hadiths from Abu Salih.

3- A narration in Al-Tabari in the interpretation 21/184:
“Bishr told us, he said: Yazid told us, he said: Saeed told us, on the authority of Matar, on the authority of Al-Hasan: David divided time into four parts: a day for his wives, a day for his worship, a day to judge the Children of Israel, and a day for the Children of Israel to talk to them… and the hadith is difficult
. ”
The narrator of the hadith is Matar, whose name is Matar Al-Warraq. He said about him he is not strong.
Ibn Saad said: He was weak in the hadith.
Al-Ajurri said about Abu Dawood : He is not an authority in my view.
Ibn Hibban mentioned him and said: Perhaps he made a mistake.

4- Another narration by Al-Tabari in Al-Tafsir 21/185:
“Ibn Hamid told us, he said: Salamah told us, he said: Muhammad ibn Ishaq told us, on the authority of some of the people of knowledge, on the authority of Wahb ibn Munabbih Al-Yamani, he said: When the Children of Israel gathered around David, God sent down the Psalms to him... He narrated the hadith.”
In this narration, he gave a reason for the beginning:
Ibn Hamid:
His name is Muhammad ibn Hamad Al-Tamimi.
Yaqub ibn Shaiba Al-Sadosi said about him: Muhammad ibn Hamid Al-Razi has many objectionable narrations.
Al-Bukhari said: There is some doubt about his hadith.

Al-Nisa’i said: He is not trustworthy.

Ibrahim bin Yaqoub Al-Jawzjani said: He has a bad doctrine and is not trustworthy.

Fadl Al-Razi said: I have fifty thousand hadiths from Ibn Hamid, but I do not narrate a single word from him.

Al-Bayhaqi said: The Imam of Imams - meaning Ibn Khuzaymah - was not narrated from.
Al-Nasa’i said about him in another place: Muhammad ibn Hamid is a liar.
The second defect:
Salamah, whose name is Salamah ibn al-Fadl al-Abrash.
Al-Bukhari said: He has some strange narrations, and he was weakened by Ali. Ali said: We did not leave Rayy until we threw stones.

In his speech.

Al-Nisa’i said: Weak.

Ibn Adi said, on the authority of Al-Bukhari: Ishaq declared him weak.
Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim said: He is not strong according to them.
The third defect:
Muhammad ibn Ishaq.
Al-Daraqutni said: The imams differed concerning him, and he is not an argument, but he is considered.
He is considered trustworthy by many of the scholars, but he is known for tadlis, and tadlis is omitting a weak sheikh. For example, we have this chain of transmission:
Hammad told us, Muhammad ibn Ishaq told us, Ibn Al-Muqaffa told us, Wakee told us, Al-Hasan Al-Basri told us, Anas told us.
If Ibn Ishaq falsifies, then he omits his sheikh, just as he omits Ibn Al-Muqaffa because he is weak. The purpose of omitting him is to strengthen the hadith and accept it, and not weaken it.
Or he may say, “So-and-so told us,” even though he did not hear from him. Or he may say,
“So-and-so and so-and-so told us,” even though he did not hear from the second so-and-so. This is called by the people of terminology “tadlis of equality.”

5- Another narration in Al-Tabari 21/186:
Yaqub bin Ibrahim told me, he said: Ibn Idris told us, he said: I heard Laith mentioning on the authority of Mujahid who said: When David committed the sin, he prostrated to God for forty days until he grew from his tears... and he narrated the hadith.
A weak narration and Laith bin Abi Salim considered it superior. Ibn Saad said about him: He was a righteous, devout man, and he was weak in hadith. It is said: He used to ask Ata’, Tawus, and Mujahid about something and they would differ about it, and it is narrated that they agreed, unintentionally.

Ibn Hibban said: He became confused at the end of his life, so he would change the chains of transmission, raise the mursal hadiths, and come up with…

On the authority of trustworthy people, with what is not from their hadith, it was left out by Al-Qattan, Ibn Mahdi, Ibn Ma’in, and Ahmad.

That's what he said.

Al-Tirmidhi said in “Al-Ilal Al-Kabeer”: Muhammad said: Ahmad used to say: Layth is not happy with his hadith. Muhammad said: Layth is truthful but makes mistakes.

Al-Hakim Abu Ahmed said: It is not strong in their view.

Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah said: It is agreed that his memory is poor.

Al-Jawzajani said: His hadith is weak.

Al-Bazzar said: He was one of the worshippers, except that he was afflicted with confusion and his speech became disturbed.

Scholars have spoken about this, otherwise we do not know anyone who has abandoned his hadith.

Yaqoub bin Shaiba said: He is truthful, but his hadith is weak.

Ibn Shaheen said in “Al-Thiqat”: Othman bin Abi Shabiba said: Layth is truthful, but…

Not a joke.

Al-Saji said: He is trustworthy, but he has some weaknesses. He had a poor memory and made many mistakes. Yahya Al-Qattan was…

At the end of it, he does not narrate from him.
Ibn Ma’in said: His hadith is rejected.

This defect alone is sufficient.

6- A narration in At-Tabari 21/187:
“Yunus told me, he said: Ibn Wahb told us, he said: Ibn Lahi’ah told me , on the authority of Abu Sakhr, on the authority of Yazid Ar-Raqashi, on the authority of Anas bin Malik, he heard him say: I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say: “When the Prophet David, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, looked at the woman and was about to do something, he cut off the Children of Israel,

The narration is very weak and has two defects:
Ibn Lahi’ah’s name is Abdullah Ibn Lahi’ah Ibn Uqbah Al-Hadrami Al-A’doli.
Al-Bukhari said, on the authority of Al-Hamidi: Yahya Ibn Saeed did not consider him anything.
Hanbal Ibn Ishaq said: I heard Abu Abdullah say: The hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah is not an argument.

Ibn Al-Madini said: Bishr bin Al-Sarri told me: If you had seen Ibn Lahi’ah, you would not have transmitted from him.
Abdul Karim bin Abdul Rahman Al-Nasa’i said, on the authority of his father: He is not trustworthy.

Ibn Ma'in said: He was weak and his hadith cannot be used as evidence.
Al-Khatib said: Hence, there are many objectionable narrations in his narrations due to his leniency.
Al-Jawzajani said: His hadith should not be relied upon and should not be used as evidence.
Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father and Abu Zur'ah about Al-Ifriqi and Ibn Lahi'ah: Which of them do you prefer? They said: They are both weak, and Ibn Lahi'ah is confused, his hadith should be written down for consideration.
Abd al-Rahman said: I said to my father: If someone narrates from Ibn Lahi'ah like Ibn al-Mubarak, then Ibn Lahi'ah can be used as evidence? He said: No.

Abu Zur'ah said: He was not accurate.
Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: His hadith is invalid.
Abu Ja'far al-Tabari himself said about him in "Tahdhib al-Athar": His mind became confused at the end of his life.

7- Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi al-Muhaqqiq said in his investigation of Tafsir al-Baghawi 4/61:
"Fabricated. Its chain of transmission is very weak. Ibn Lahi'ah is weak in hadith, and his sheikh Abu Sakhr is weak in him, and Yazid is weak. He narrated many objectionable hadiths, and this one rejected them."

Ibn Wahb is Abdullah, Ibn Lahi’ah is also Abdullah, Abu Sakhr is Hamid ibn Ziyad.

Yazid is the son of Aban.

- It is in “Tafsir al-Tabari” 29859 on the authority of Yunus with this chain of transmission.

It is a fabricated hadith without a doubt. Rather, it is one of the Isra’iliyyat. See “Tafsir al-Shawkani” 2137 with my chain of transmission.

8- The investigator Muhammad Abdullah Al-Nimr said in his investigation of Al-Baghawi’s interpretation, Dar Taybah edition 7/78:
“These narrations are weak.”

9- Al-Zamakhshari said in “Al-Kashaf” Beirut edition 4/81:
“This and similar narrations are shameful to narrate from some of the Muslims who claim to be righteous, let alone some of the prominent prophets.”

10- Ibn Atiyah said something similar in his interpretation 4/499 Beirut edition.

11- Ibn Al-Qayyim said in Zaad Al-Masir Beirut edition 3/566:
“This is not correct by way of transmission, and it is not permissible in terms of meaning, because the prophets are free from it.... As for what was narrated that he looked at the woman and desired her and presented her husband for killing, then this is an aspect that is not permissible for the prophets, because the prophets do not commit sins while knowing about them.”

12- Al-Razi said in Mafatih al-Ghaib, Beirut edition, 26/377:
“As for the first statement, the gist of their words about it is that David loved Uriah’s wife, so he used many tricks until he killed her husband and then married her. So God sent to him two angels in the form of two disputants in an incident similar to his incident, and they presented that incident to him. So David ruled... By virtue of a ruling, he must admit that he is a sinner, then he becomes aware of that and becomes busy with repentance.

What I believe in and agree with is that this is false, and there are several reasons for this: The first is that if this story were attributed to the most wicked and most immoral of people, he would be disgusted by it, and the wicked, literalist man who tells this story, if he were attributed to such an act, would exaggerate in his purification of himself, and perhaps he would curse whoever attributes it to him. And if it was The matter is like this, so how is it appropriate for a rational person to attribute the infallible to him? The second: The gist of the story goes back to two matters: the attempt to kill a Muslim man unjustly and the desire for his wife. As for the first: it is a reprehensible matter.

The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “Whoever sheds the blood of a Muslim, even with half a word, will come on the Day of Resurrection with it written between his eyes: ‘Despairing of God’s mercy.’”

As for the second: It is a great evil. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “A Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe.” Uriah was not safe from David, neither in his soul nor in his marriage. The third: God Almighty described David, peace be upon him, before mentioning this story with the ten attributes mentioned, and He also described him with many attributes after mentioning this story. All of these attributes contradict the fact that he, peace be upon him, was described with this reprehensible act and ugly deed. There is nothing wrong with repeating these attributes for the sake of exaggeration in the explanation.

13- Ahmad Al-Bardouni and Ibrahim Atfeesh said in their investigation of Al-Qurtubi’s interpretation, Beirut edition 15/166:
“What Al-Qurtubi mentioned here about David, peace be upon him, is from the Israelite stories and has no basis in truth. It is nonsense and slander, as Al-Baydawi said, and it is among the things that cast doubt on the infallibility of the prophets, peace be upon them. Abu Hayyan did well and excelled when he said: It is known with certainty that the prophets, peace be upon them, are infallible from sins and cannot possibly have committed any of them. It is necessary that if we were to allow them to do anything like that, the laws would be invalidated, and we would not trust anything that they say that God revealed to them. So what God Almighty narrated in His Book passes by what He Almighty intended, and what Al-Qasas narrated that belittles the position of prophethood, we have discarded, and we are as the poet said:

14- Alaa al-Din ibn Umar al-Shihi said in his interpretation known as al-Khazin, Beirut edition 4/34: “The scholars differed in the accounts of the prophets regarding the reason for that ,
and I will mention what the commentators said, then I will follow it with a chapter in which he mentioned the purity of David, peace be upon him, from what is not befitting his position, peace be upon him, because the position of prophethood is the most honorable and highest of positions, so nothing is attributed to it except what is befitting it.”

15- Al-Allamah al-Shanqeeti said in “Adwaa al-Bayan”:
“And know that what many commentators mention in the interpretation of this noble verse, which is not befitting the position of David, peace be upon him and our Prophet, peace be upon him, all goes back to the Israelite stories, so there is no trust in it, and no reliance on it, and what came from it traced back to the Prophet, peace be upon him, nothing is correct from it.”

16- Imam Ibn al-Arabi said in “Ahkam al-Qur’an”: What caused people to fall into that is the narration of the commentators and the negligent Muslims in the stories of the prophets, calamities beyond measure. 17 - The Egyptian Dar Al-Iftaa - Mufti

Attia Saqr - reported in May 1997 - the chapter of David, peace be upon him, saying:
“The Qur’an spoke about our master David, peace be upon him, in a manner befitting the status of prophethood, describing him as a penitent who returned to God. God gave him the kingdom, wisdom, and the ability to make clear judgments. He softened iron for him, taught him the language of birds, and protected him, as He protected all the prophets, from anything that would compromise his status and honor.”

It is not reasonable for him to rape a woman who is not permissible for him, or to think of a trick to get rid of her husband so that he can marry her. This incident is beyond the scope of anyone from the common people, so how about the chosen and good messengers of God who were sent to call for high moral values? Those who are fond of strange things and those who transmit from the People of the Book without taking precautions in what they transmit have tried to attribute this incident to... There is much talk in interpreting these verses, and some commentators have claimed that the "ewe" is the woman, and that the story is a lesson for David who coveted the wife of the commander "Uriah" and was not satisfied with the women he had. This is talk that contradicts the status of the prophets.

And whoever wants to browse the book... 8/134.

17- Al-‘Allamah al-‘Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, said in “Fatawa ‘ala Noor al-Darb” 4/2:
“What is mentioned in the Isra’iliyyat about David, peace be upon him, in the story of the two opponents who argued before him, and one of them said: (This is my brother. He has ninety-nine ewes, and I have one ewe. So he said: “Entrust her to me,” and he overpowered me in the argument (23). He said: “He has certainly wronged you in asking for your ewe in addition to his ewes.” In some Isra’iliyyat it is mentioned that David, peace be upon him, had one of the soldiers, and this soldier had a woman who impressed David and he wanted her, so he asked this soldier to go to jihad so that he might be killed and take his wife. This is a false story, and it is not permissible for anyone to transmit it unless it is made clear that it is a lie, and it is not permissible to believe it. In a prophet of Allah, this is not befitting nor from an ordinary person, so how about a prophet? I do not think that this is one of the plots of the Jews that they planted on the Muslims to corrupt their religion. The issue is that this man and his opponent had one ewe, that is, a female sheep, and his brother - that is, his opponent - had ninety-nine, so he said to him: You only have one that is of no use, and I have ninety-nine, one more remains and the hundred will be completed, and a person looks to complete the number, so he asked him for this one, and he began to present arguments to him until he defeated him in the arguments, so they disputed before David.

18- Ibrahim Al-Qattan said in “Tayseer Al-Tafseer” 3/161:
“Many commentators have said what is stated in the Torah, that David loved the wife of Uriah the Hittite and that he sent him to war until he was killed and then married her, and nothing of this has been proven to us in the hadith, and therefore we must be wary of these matters, for the Torah has been distorted from the core to the subtlety as Luther and others say, and as the Holy Qur’an states.”

19- Abu Shabah said in “Al-Isra’iliyyat wa Al-Mawdu’at fi Kutub Al-Tafsir” p. 116:
“What some commentators mentioned in their interpretation of the Almighty’s saying: {And has there reached you the news of the litigants when they climbed over the wall of the private chamber? When they entered upon David and he was terrified of them. They said, “Do not fear. We are two litigants. One of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth and do not be unjust and guide us to the straight path. Indeed, this is my brother. He has ninety-nine ewes, and I have a ewe.” {One}, the verses, they mentioned in this a false story, which is: the story of David with “Uriah”: the commander of his army, and his beautiful wife, whom David wanted to take to himself, even though he had ninety-nine wives... The story is absolutely false, as we will explain in what follows, God willing. Then, for this purpose, they interpreted the ewe as the woman, and in that they made a mistake in the evidence and the meaning.

In the same book, there is a chapter on Israelite stories in the story of David, pp. 264 to 270, establishing the basis and demonstrating the invalidity of the story. Whoever wants to investigate should refer to it. Due to brevity, I did not include his words.

20 - The scholar of the age, Ibn Baz, says in his fatwas “Light on the Path”:
“For a clear sign, for two angels came to him, and climbed over to him the mihrab, and informed him that they were opponents. God explained the story clearly in the verse - Glory be to Him - and David explained what he saw in their subject, so there is no problem in the verse. As for what the storytellers and some of the commentators tell of stories about that, it should not be relied upon. Rather, it should be informed by the Qur’an and that is sufficient, and God knows best what is beyond that. As for the stories in which it says that David did such and such, this should not be relied upon. We ask God for safety . ”